Civil Partnerships

[Jimgym]

A heterosexual couple in the UK have taken the Govt to court because they said it was discrimination that they couldn’t have a CP. My question is, what’s the difference between that and a registry office? It all seems very strange.

[Dominic]

They should just abolish civil partnerships now. Given that they existed because gay people couldn't get married, and now they can, I really can't see what purpose they now serve.

However, if they do serve a purpose, then whether you are gay or straight should be irrelevant, surely?

What I really don't get though, is why anybody would care that much to take it to court. Life is short, I would much rather blow my time doing something other than that.

[Jimgym]

They were brought in because of the opposition to full marriage for gays. But I really don’t understand why heterosexuals who have always been allowed to marry in church or non religious registry office. Why would they want to take it to the high court? I really feel I'm missing the point here!

[Jimgym]

The principle....and I tend to agree, although I also agree with Dominic, they should be done away with.

A very odd principle. Still if it makes them feel better about themselves ....

[Dominic]

It's that kind of attitude that causes so many problems for the UK. The reason they have to enforce everything to the letter, instead of being more relaxed about things like the rest of the world, is because there will always be people who will do things not because they actually want to, but because of the principle.

[Dominic]

Well, they clearly deserve each other.

Can you imagine how boring they must be?

[Kia Picanto]

Their statement, about the 'legacy of marriage', is very out of date anyway. The way they bring up their children (to respect equality), has nothing to do with a piece of paper 'legalising' their civil partnership, but everything to do with the values they teach. A registry office marriage, would give them BOTH equal shares in their relationship, as per UK law. I personally believe they are attention seekers.

The Gov't had planned to do away with Civil Partnerships anyway, as they're obviously irrelevant, now that gay couples are free to marry. However, it seems this court case came about before they could legislate. (Possibly because HM Gov't are slightly busy with other important issues atm).

[Jimgward]

Well, let me enlighten the misinformed or ill-thought out responses.

I was married and divorced over 20 years ago. Ive been with my much better half for over 20 years. We never married, due to personal issues with her family - i.e a marriage involves inviting close family members, some of whom cant be in the same place, but equally she wouldn’t exclude either. I also wasn’t keen for a very small marriage as I come from a huge family. So we couldn’t solve the issue.

Even a civil wedding would cause us angst.

A civil partnership is a purely legal situation, which would simplify our financial situations immensely. Otherwise, we are both seriously exposed to tax and other issues, that same sex couples can dispense through either marriage or civil partnership.

So this, is an immense change for us. It allows us to financially and legally enjoy the same situation as a marriage, without the encumbrance of a marriage and the stress, issues and costs it would involve. We can then do it, without having to necessarily make any issue of it. It’s simply like a legal document to us and nothing more.

We neither of us want the potential stress a marriage, either civil or religious would impose upon us or our families.

[Dominic]

When my wife and I got married we had a very small civil wedding followed by lunch in a local pub. We had both gone through big weddings in our first marriages and just wanted the paperwork.

It is only a stress if you make it a stress.

And there is nothing misinformed or ill-thought out about my response. It is a difference of opinion. Deal with it without being rude.

[kansas]

We did the same as Dominic, a registry office wedding followed by a get together with our friends at the local pub, as we did every Saturday afternoon. We explained to the family that as we had been living together for over 20 years, it wasn't a big deal and I don't think they were offended by not being invited. We didn't receive any wedding presents though, ha ha!!!

[Jimgward]

When my wife and I got married we had a very small civil wedding followed by lunch in a local pub. We had both gone through big weddings in our first marriages and just wanted the paperwork.

It is only a stress if you make it a stress.

And there is nothing misinformed or ill-thought out about my response. It is a difference of opinion. Deal with it without being rude.

I think you’re assessment of the couple was rude. I also still stand by what I said, yes, a difference of opinion, but it wasn’t rude of me to have the opinionion that others, including yourself, hadn’t through of all the reasons why this had a place.

[Dominic]

But it doesn't have a place, that's the whole point.

[Jimgward]

I completely disagree. A civil partnership is needed until the financial and tax priveledged awarded to married or civil partnership couples are given to people who live together.

If I die, my partner has large tax consequences.

A marriage is a different thing. You assume that stress is all that stops one over the other.

I can have a civil partnership and nobody needs to know. It is a legal process to allow financial protection. I don’t need to state or repeat oaths, attend premises. Have witnesses. Lots more.

[Dominic]

What large tax consequences? No need to go into specifics, just in general terms.

[Jimgward]

If you are married, you’re spouse can inherit joint property etc plus cash, investments and insurance without tax consequences.

If unmarried, you have a rather low limit other than the place of residence.

[Jimgward]

“This is because, whilst transfers between married couples and civil partners are exempt from IHT, there is no such exemption for unmarried individuals. This means that anything left to an unmarried partner over and above the 'nil rate band' (currently £325,000 for tax year 2013/14) would be subject to IHT at 40%.“

[Jimgward]

Inheritance Tax
As a common law spouse you will not have the benefit of spouse exemption – which allows married couples the right to leave all their estate to each other, irrespective of value, without paying any inheritance tax whatsoever.
If your common law spouse has made a Will leaving everything to you and their estate exceeds £325,000 you will usually have to suffer Inheritance Tax at the rate of 40% on everything above this figure.
We own our home in joint names as joint tenants
The home will automatically pass on the first death by survivorship, regardless of whether there is a Will or not, but there will still be Inheritance Tax consequences.

[Dominic]

And in a civil partnership, what do you actually do? I mean, what is the process?

[Jimgym]

And in a civil partnership, what do you actually do? I mean, what is the process?

You stand in front of registrar and they cover legal stuff. Anything non religious can be read/said etc. You sign and have it witnessed. Rather like a registry office wedding I imagine.

[Jimgward]

Thank you Ronk. Saves me scolding Hudswell again